To all of those who have so heartlessly, viciously, and without any conscience whatsoever, ridiculed and condemned me over these past 38 years in order to shift all attention away from the Message to the messenger:
It is utterly irrelevant whether the person who warns you that your house is on fire is a “paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur”, suffers from “narcissistic personality disorder”; or, in some other way, is the most disgustingly obnoxious, insane, stupid, evil and/or vile person on the face of the earth.
Seriously.
It makes no difference.
What is relevant is that he has warned you that your house is on fire.
What is relevant is that you will ignore that warning to your peril (as the governments of the United States and Britain ignored the warning of the Kurdish intelligence agencies some 5 months ago with regards to the dangers of ISIS taking over northern Iraq).
To an idolator, however, the information that his house is on fire is not nearly as important as who it is that is warning him. To an idolator, who a person is is always more important than the message he conveys (especially if he is neither rich nor famous, and has no political or religious power).
Which is why Christianity, Inc., in a mere two thousand years, has degenerated into nothing more than the mindless worship of Jesus as ‘God’…
By hundreds of millions of people who don’t even know that Eve was never banished from Paradise; by hundreds of millions of people who cannot explain the reply of Jesus to the Sadducees; by hundreds of millions of people who cannot understand that Chapter 27, verses 52-53 of the Gospel of Matthew is a figurative description of the revelation of the memories of previous lives; and by hundreds of millions of people who cannot recognize that Jesus affirmed, not merely once, but twice, that John the Baptist was the prophet Elijah ‘raised from the dead’…
And that he would return yet again.
Can any one of those who have so heartlessly and viciously condemned me for the Message I have conveyed contradict effectively the assertion that, esoterically, the “dragon” in the Revelation of John (and the “serpent” in Chapter 3 of Genesis) is a figurative description of the origin of the duality (I seriously doubt that they even understand either the meaning or the significance of the term “duality”, in the first place); that the “beast of the sea” symbolizes the consciousness of the “self; or that the “beast of the earth” symbolizes the consciousness of the ‘thinker’…?
Or that, in relation to the space-time reality, the “dragon” symbolizes the media, “the beast” symbolizes the political establishment, and the “false prophet” symbolizes the monotheistic religious ‘authorities’…?
Or that the “king of the South” and the “king of the North” in the fractal Prophecies of Chapter 11, verses 40-45 of the Book of Daniel represent, respectively, the United States and its allies and Russia and its allies…?
Or that Jesus was the author of the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls; clearly demonstrating that he taught the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’…?
Or that the term “Tree of Life” in Chapter 3, verse 24 of Genesis is the same as the “sidrah tree” in the Quran?
Or that Sura 2, verse 98 of the Quran is an echo of the Prophecy in Chapter 12, verse 1 of the Book of Daniel?
Or that…? Or that…? Or that…?
(Never mind.)
Of course not.
(Which is why the only effective weapon against such assertions is absolute and relentless censorship.)
But never mind any of that, insist the idolators.
Never mind the Message; one of the purposes of which has always been to establish the authenticity of the Visions and Prophecies I have received of the coming “time of trouble”…
In order that people would then believe the Prophecies I have received, and that such bloodshed and suffering could then be diminished.
Instead, focus on the messenger; insisting relentlessly that I am insane, or evil, or stupid—but, in any case, not to be believed.
Just keep repeating the same accusations—the same focus on the messenger, while absolutely disregarding the Message—endlessly…
Regardless of the Knowledge I have received through the Vision of the “Son of man” and the Revelation of “the resurrection”.
Why?
Because such “ignorance is bliss”.
Because such accusations are comforting and pleasurable.
And, much more importantly, because such accusations can easily—and unquestioningly—be repeated by anyone with the intelligence quotient of an earthworm.
And what, precisely, have all of these “accusers” of mine (see Chapter 12, verse 10 of the Revelation of John) accomplished over these past 38 years?
While they have been accusing me of evil, shifting their attention to the messenger rather than the Message, and censoring the Revelations and Prophecies I have sent them, millions have been slaughtered or tortured to death throughout the Middle East—in merely a partial fulfillment of the Vision of the “time of trouble” I received in January, 1975—while tens of millions of others have been driven from their homes.
And what have I accomplished over these past 38 years?
Nothing more than to fulfill the responsibility I have had to inform and warn them of those Revelations and Prophecies.
Not to convince them; but merely to inform them.
Nothing more than that.
Michael, as Prophesied (Chapter 12, verse 1 of the Book of Daniel; Sura 2, verse 98 of the Quran; Column XVII of the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light; and Chapter 3, verse 12 of the Revelation of John) and
(Seven Women, Seven Churches and Seven Sisters )
Sarah–>Elijah–>Daniel–>John the Baptist–>Mohammed–>Elizabeth for:
Hagar–>the apostle Mary–>Danielle (1982)
(March, 1987—the http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960705.html)
Isaac–>the apostle John–>Robin (1986)
Isaac–>the apostle John–>Robin (1986)
Ishmael–>the apostle Peter–>Cindy (1992)
Jacob–>the apostle Thomas–>Linda (1987-
Esau–>the apostle, Judas–>Susan (1970)
Isaiah’s wife–>the apostle James–>Kimberly (2000-
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
“It is utterly irrelevant whether the person who warns you that your house is on fire is a “paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur”, suffers from “narcissistic personality disorder”; or, in some other way, is the most disgustingly obnoxious, insane, stupid, evil and/or vile person on the face of the earth.”
That is absolutely true.
And it is entirely beside the point.
The point is this: After a self-admitted 38 year career at attempting to coerce or cajole your captive audience into giving you the time of day, you are an abysmal failure. As a messenger, you are feeble at best; utterly ineffectual at worst.
And why is this so?
It’s not because there’s anything inherently wrong with your intended audience. Rather, it is because no one believes your message. No one believes your message because your message is not true. Both history and Scripture teach us that, while being unpopular, the TRUTH always in the end manages to attract a segment, albeit a very small one, of the population of hearers to see the validity of the message. But your batting average is triple zero.
So now what will you do? Apparently, your settled upon tactic has been to don the garb of the martyr. Now you feel victimized because no one will listen to you?
If you really want to be heard, then change your message.
Failing that, perhaps you should have a Coke and a smile and shut the ‘f’ up.
[Yet for a little while, the ghost of freedom still swirls the bowl in this land. That means you can still enjoy your liberty to hawk nonsense. The least you could do in return is to stop complaining like a baby. You would think that after 38 years you might have let the message, or at least part of it, sink into that thick skull of yours: No one is buying what you're selling. And Einstein's quip about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is inapplicable in this case. What you're doing isn't the textbook definition if insanity...
...it's the textbook definition of stupidity.]
It’s okay to switch teams once you realize that you’re swinging a bat for a guaranteed looser. I can assure you there is far more than just ridicule intended in this posting to you. In fact, the ridicule is only incidental. 38 years? Surely, you’re doing SOMETHING very wrong. Find out what it is and you can still get out of this thing at least partially intact.
The first question that needs to be asked with regards to the assertions that you make in your reply is “Which consciousness is it that is making such assertions?”
And, as I have already explained in greater detail elsewhere:
http://science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/2011/04/towards-new-paradigm-of-consciousness-i.html
there are three dimensions of human consciousness: 1) the consciousness of the “self”; 2) the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (both of which are dualistic); and, 3) the non-dualistic “observing consciousness” (of the Eastern esoteric tradition; see, for example, the writings and lectures of J. Krishnamurti); also referred to as the (non-spatial/non-temporal) consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’ [as cryptically referred to in Chapter 1, verse 27 of Genesis (and see, also, Chapter 6, verse 4 of Deuteronomy)]—the existence of which is demonstrated and directly experienced by (it is not merely a theory concocted by the consciousness of the ‘thinker’) the receiving (or the revelation) of the memories of previous lives.
(Thus, it can readily be observed from the very outset that you have not received memories of previous lives; and, for that reason, are at a distinct and extreme disadvantage from the very beginning when it comes to understanding the structure of the conscious reality.)
In any case, what must first be said about your reply is that your statements do not originate in the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ because they do not consist of any logical structure nor reasoning toward a conclusion (that is, they have all the conceptual structure of the squirming of an earthworm); but neither is there any evidence that they originate from the non-dualistic dimension of consciousness (unless, that is, you can provide a closely-reasoned argument to the contrary; which I consider to be highly unlikely).
Thus, by means of elimination, it must be concluded that the assertions that you make can originate only in the consciousness of the “self”—referred to in the Revelation of John as the “beast of the sea”.
Now what, precisely, is the consciousness of the “self”?
The consciousness of the “self” is a ‘spatiality’ of consciousness (a consciousness which is then extended in ‘time’ by the postulation of the thought of a “self” or a ‘thinker’, resulting in the creation of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’); without which the consciousness of the “self” can only collapse into psychosis—see the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes (echoing the symbolism in the Revelation of John). (But I’m not sure that you are capable of understanding that either.)
It is a dualistic consciousness very sharply characterized by naked and non-rational definitions of “Good” and “Evil” (which is why it is also referred to as the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which is opposed to the “Tree of Life”; symbolizing the non-dualistic consciousness and the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man”); those definitions of “Good” pertaining only to the “self”’s desire for pleasure and self-preservation; and those definitions of “Evil” pertaining only to pain, the fear of the loss of pleasure, and threats of annihilation.
In other words, the consciousness out of which your statements originate is not a consciousness that is in any way interested in Truth in the first place—since the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (and the definition of Truth and Falsehood) does not yet exist—but merely in pleasure, self-preservation, and the avoidance of pain and annihilation.
Thus, you make a number of significant errors in your reply:
1) “It’s not because there is anything inherently wrong with your intended audience.”
Of course there is.
According to Genesis—which, it appears, you have thrown out altogether—there was a ‘Fall’ from the consciousness created by God (the consciousness through which this Knowledge was Revealed) to the ‘fallen’ consciousness (of the “self” and the ‘thinker’). So, what is ‘inherently wrong with my intended audience’ is that they operate, for all practical purposes, exclusively from within the framework of the ‘fallen’ consciousness. And, obviously, anyone who operates exclusively from within that frame of reference is opposed to the Knowledge Revealed through the non-dualistic consciousness.
2) “No one believes your message because your message is not true.”
As previously stated, the consciousness of the “self” is interested only in pleasure and self-preservation, not in either Truth or Falsehood. Thus, your statement should be changed to “No one believes your message because your message is not pleasurable and does not preserve (or extend in time) the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of the “self”—something with which I fully agree.
On the contrary, ‘my’ Message strikes at the very root of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” consciousness of the “self” because that dualistic consciousness has differentiated itself—and, for that reason is opposed to—the consciousness conveyed by the “Tree of Life”/“sidrah tree”/Vision of the “Son of man”. The ‘fallen’ consciousness MUST be opposed to the non-dualistic consciousness out of the desire for its own self-preservation.
3) “Both history and scripture teach us that…the TRUTH always in the end manages to attract a segment…”
(‘Strange’ that you would be so unaware of the Revelations that you would actually mention “the End” in your reply. But thanks.)
According to the Prophecy in Chapter 12, verse 9 of the Book of Daniel, “…these words will remain secret and sealed until the time of the End.”
This means that, “at the time of the End”, NEW information will be Revealed that has never been Revealed before. So, I agree with you. Because it is at the “time of the End” that such new information—for example, that the Doctrine of “the resurrection” is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’—will be Revealed. (But, esoterically, the term “time of the End” also signifies the annihilation of time itself; that is, the annihilation of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ which creates the concept of time; prior to the receiving of, among other Revelations, the revelation of the memories of previous lives.) And what I am saying is that that “new information” has ALREADY been Revealed; but it has been opposed by the ‘fallen’ consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; which is why so few people are interested
4) “If you really want to be heard, then change your message.”
When you use the word “your” what you are referring to is the ‘fallen’ consciousness—that is, the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.
But that is not the source of the Message that I convey in the first place.
This Knowledge originates in that non-dualistic consciousness—a consciousness beyond the “self” and the ‘thinker’—and, for that reason, can not really be referred to a “my” Message at all; certain elements of which were previously conveyed by the prophets; other elements of which were previously conveyed by the Buddha and J. Krishnamurti.
In other words, the Message is not “mine” to change in the first place.
In short, everything that you say can be very easily summarized as being nothing more than a consciousness of a “self”—or the consciousness of a serpent or a viper, it makes no real difference—characterizing as Evil (i.e., wriggling away from) something which is painful and threatens its self-preservation; that is, its extension in ‘time’.
But that, of course, is my responsibility: to confront the ‘fallen’ consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ with the Knowledge Revealed through the non-dualistic consciousness conveyed by the Vision of the “Son of man” and the Revelation of “the resurrection”.
Thanks for playing.
Michael
Another Pix
“Atom from atom, moment from moment, hand to mouth! SLAVES NAAOOOOOOOOW!!!!”
@Can any one of those who have so heartlessly and viciously condemned me for the Message I have conveyed contradict effectively the assertion that, esoterically, the “dragon” in the Revelation of John (and the “serpent” in Chapter 3 of Genesis) is a figurative description of the origin of the duality (I seriously doubt that they even understand either the meaning or the significance of the term “duality”, in the first place); that the “beast of the sea” symbolizes the consciousness of the “self; or that the “beast of the earth” symbolizes the consciousness of the ‘thinker’…?
You laughable Hindu master race wannabe! We’re freaking taught that all those interpretations in school! People are ignoring you because they would rather talk to the sane than waste time with a fool trying to con them into slavery!
Plato paints the picture of a Charioteer (Greek: ἡνίοχος) driving a chariot pulled by two winged horses:
“First the charioteer of the human soul drives a pair, and secondly one of the horses is noble and of noble breed, but the other quite the opposite in breed and character. Therefore in our case the driving is necessarily difficult and troublesome.”[1]
The Charioteer represents intellect, reason, or the part of the soul that must guide the soul to truth; one horse represents rational or moral impulse or the positive part of passionate nature (e.g., righteous indignation); while the other represents the soul’s irrational passions, appetites, or concupiscent nature. The Charioteer directs the entire chariot/soul, trying to stop the horses from going different ways, and to proceed towards enlightenment.
Oh, by the way, neither the consciousness of the “self” nor the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ was Created by God.
The consciousness of the “self” was self-created (time is bi-directional at the level of the consciousness of the “self”) through the ‘movement’ of self-reflection; whereas the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ was self-created through the postulation of the thought of the ‘thinker’.
It is ONLY the non-dualistic consciousness–the consciousness with which you have NO experience OR memory–that was Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27).
Michael
Oh, by the way, don’t try telling me that what I am saying cannot *possibly* be the Truth…
Because ‘you’ve never heard it before…’
OF COURSE you’ve never heard it before.
That is the *meaning*, after all, of the word “secret”: something that is previously unknown.
Oh, by the way, can you explain what Jesus told the apostle Thomas in the Gospel of Thomas, or what it means that only Adam was banished from Paradise?
Or can you explain the reply of Jesus to the Sadducees WITHOUT appealing to the lies of the Christian religious ‘authorities’?
Michael
You appear to be absolutely and INFALLIBLY certain–maybe you were a pope in a previous life, who knows?–that the Message I convey is NOT the Truth.
How many BILLIONS of human lives are you willing to risk for that belief?
Something that is based upon nothing more than hearsay and readwrite?
If your answer is “EVERY human life on the face of the earth”, then you pass with flying colors the fundamental job requirement of EVERY Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious ‘authority’ in the United States that I have contacted over the past 38 years.
So, DON’T be SURPRISED at what is going to happen.
Because you have not been allowed to be informed of the Prophecies I have received by the ‘agents’ of the “dragon”-media, you WILL be informed, however, of the FULFILLMENT of those Prophecies.
Michael
“Thus, it can readily be observed from the very outset that you have not received memories of previous lives; and, for that reason, are at a distinct and extreme disadvantage from the very beginning when it comes to understanding the structure of the conscious reality.”
This can be readily observed by WHOM?
Here is the tactic you just employed: You have attempted to seize for yourself the advantage of landlord. You have asserted both the right and the authority to orient the playing field, and to organize its topography. The problem is this – I reject your authority to do anything of the kind. The rabbis do exactly the same thing when they assert for themselves the authority to alter or amend the Torah, on an as-needed basis. Furthermore, the rabbis are reckless enough to claim for themselves victory in any debate with the Most High, and this before any such debate has even begun. The Catholic authorities are guilty of precisely the same sort of tactic, in that they too claim for themselves the authority to change the written Word in order to suit their needs. But the question is this: Why should anyone consent to arguing with either a rabbi or a Catholic ‘doctor’ on their own terms? Why should anyone other than a Jew or a Catholic recognize an authority for which there has never been presented legitimate evidence of authenticity? In other words: Why should it be incumbent upon anyone to yield to a claim of authority, when that very authority has yet to be validated? The very simple answer is, no one need bow to such illegitimate authority at all. Excepting the application of brute force, itself a hallmark of illegitimacy, all claims to legitimacy made by any authority can be and should be ignored until such time as the claims to legitimacy have been consented to by all parties involved. There is no need to meet the rabbis or the Catholics on their own terms, when the underpinning legitimacy for those terms is not warranted and should not be sanctioned.
So it is with your above claim. If the pattern you described in your above quoted effort to set the stage of debate rests upon legitimate and authentic principles and foundations, no one but you would have any way of knowing it. Therefore, if there is any merit to your claim, that merit exists only in your imagination. And, for the purposes of any debate or conversation you will ever have with a reasonable counterpart in discourse, with respect to the pattern you have outlined in your above statement, you should not presume to operate from the standpoint of legitimacy until such time as that legitimacy has been validated, or at least until the terms and conditions of your argument have been agreed to by your counterpart(s). As your counterpart in discourse in this case, I do not consent to the legitimacy of your claims. I am therefore under no obligation to operate within the boundaries you would have me confined to. You will perhaps attribute this to ignorance on my behalf. Such is your prerogative. But in the case of a ‘messenger’ who has what, according to him, amounts to a crucially important message to deliver to the world, should it not then be incumbent upon that messenger to ensure that the method in which he has chosen to deliver his message is itself foursquare beyond reproach? Yet the vessel in which you consent to convey your message is itself under indictment; as indeed are the contents of that vessel – the very message itself.
“In any case, what must first be said about your reply is that your statements do not originate in the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ because they do not consist of any logical structure nor reasoning toward a conclusion (that is, they have all the conceptual structure of the squirming of an earthworm); but neither is there any evidence that they originate from the non-dualistic dimension of consciousness (unless, that is, you can provide a closely-reasoned argument to the contrary; which I consider to be highly unlikely).”
Shall I provide a “closely-reasoned” defense against your non-specific charge of fractured discourse? I shall not. Not until you show me the courtesy of providing some “closely-reasoned” specifics against which I might be able to offer you a rebuttal. But since I have already rejected your imaginary powers to morph the landscape of this conversation into any topography you deem convenient to your purposes, then I guess you’ll have to proceed via a more universally acceptable set of rules, i.e. to proceed from the position of a set of rules which are actually founded in substance; and not from your preferred perch launching logic-bombs from the safety of some fortified castle floating in the clouds.
“Thus, by means of elimination, it must be concluded that the assertions that you make can originate only in the consciousness of the “self”—referred to in the Revelation of John as the “beast of the sea”.”
In light of the above, this last statement of yours is worthy to be discarded entirely. Any such preposterous suppositions can be summarily objected to and rejected on the grounds that you have done nothing to earn the right to employ such statements in discourse. You are claiming for yourself the right to call your doctrine legitimate, but you are owed no such privilege. HOWEVER, it is at this point in your answer that you actually condescend from the clouds long enough to offer something of an explanation for your fanciful claims. Let’s see whether you manage to provide anything useful. You wrote:
“Now what, precisely, is the consciousness of the “self”?”
Nope. Totally useless. Here’s why: You have neglected to first offer a definition of ‘consciousness’ from which we might proceed before leap-frogging past that plausible starting point into a compound nebulous term. Then you continued:
“The consciousness of the “self” is a ‘spatiality’ of consciousness (a consciousness which is then extended in ‘time’ by the postulation of the thought of a “self” or a ‘thinker’, resulting in the creation of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’); without which the consciousness of the “self” can only collapse into psychosis—see the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes (echoing the symbolism in the Revelation of John). (But I’m not sure that you are capable of understanding that either.)”
You’re not sure whether I’m capable of understanding? You just stated that ‘the consciousness of the self results in the creation of the consciousness of the thinker’. And with gelatinous offal like this, you have the audacity to suggest that anyone should understand you? You are a mess. Without even considering any echoes (whether real or imagined) of Revelation in the valueless off-gassings of French philosophers, your above attempt at clarity threatens collapse into ridiculousness. Again, you might try defining terms like ‘consciousness’ before suggesting that an appendage of consciousness is itself responsible for the existence of consciousness. That’s like saying: ‘I think, therefore I am, because I have a nose’.
“It is a dualistic consciousness very sharply characterized by naked and non-rational definitions of “Good” and “Evil” (which is why it is also referred to as the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which is opposed to the “Tree of Life”; symbolizing the non-dualistic consciousness and the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man”); those definitions of “Good” pertaining only to the “self”’s desire for pleasure and self-preservation; and those definitions of “Evil” pertaining only to pain, the fear of the loss of pleasure, and threats of annihilation.”
There’s a lot to address in this next statement of yours, but let’s favor the pithy over the prolix. (I’ll pretend not to notice your missing segue; yet further evidence of choppy and erratic thinking.) That’s how easily you mop up after the Garden of Eden? That is impressive, sir, considering the mountains of hair that men have ripped from their own scalps in contemplation of these very concepts. Perhaps you are a god. Or are you are better compared with a child playing with a loaded firearm? Take care, lest you incur wounds for which there is no treatment. Have you ever considered ‘good and evil’ from the perspective of a compound term? Have you ever examined ‘good and evil’ (in the sense of that particular Tree under consideration) according to the key we are given in Scripture? The key in this instance is ‘confusion’. (Note the word, and observe ITS meaning. Here’s a hint: con-fusion.) Incidentally, I can think of no good reason at all to study the Scriptures from a philosophical perspective, as you are apparently fond of doing. By what merits do we owe philosophy this honor? All schools of philosophical thought amount to corruptions of right-ruling and can only proceed within the awkward confines of artificial and unnecessary limitations. And what exactly is “the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man””? Another question: What does one find when looking at the Garden of Eden through a Cartesian lens? Answer: One will can only hope to find deformity and Cartesian-flavored corruption. If there is any legitimacy at all in your one-dimensional analysis, it is infinitesimal and should be considered only as an adjunct to a proper multi-dimensional perspective.
“In other words, the consciousness out of which your statements originate is not a consciousness that is in any way interested in Truth in the first place—since the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (and the definition of Truth and Falsehood) does not yet exist—but merely in pleasure, self-preservation, and the avoidance of pain and annihilation.”
By this point, I would expect you might care to reconsider this reckless charge. Or are you in this merely to pepper the air with chaff and to ignore and avoid?
Quoting you:
“Thus, you make a number of significant errors in your reply: 1) “It’s not because there is anything inherently wrong with your intended audience.” Of course there is…”
Once again, you ducked my point entirely. The point was that there is no inherent flaw in your target audience which would (or should) render it UNIVERSALLY unreceptive to your message. My point is that a true message is not UNIVERSALLY rejected. However, your message IS universally rejected, and therefore your message (and/or its delivery) is somehow flawed. Truth is without flaw. I called upon Scripture and the Historical Record as two witnesses to my statement that Truth is never universally rejected.
“2) “No one believes your message because your message is not true.””
Your answer to this was nothing but a further attempt at obfuscation and avoidance, and has already been addressed by all of the above. Moreover, you may not re-write my statements for me and then wrap your invention in quotation marks. I meant what I said; not what you would have me to say or suggest that I should say instead. And I’ll say it again: No one believes your message because your message is not true. If your message were true, it would be received by at least a SEGMENT (or perhaps a remnant) of your target audience, no matter how unpleasant or how ‘unpleasurable’ the message may in fact be. But zero receptivity (especially across the span of 38 years) is indicative of zero truth. This is an axiom. The truth will always find His own.
In your answer to number three you completely ignored number two. There is no getting around an axiom. ‘You will know them by their fruit’. Your tree is barren. You have no fruit. Therefore, we know you by the ABSENCE of your fruit. This is the result of priority. You have concerned yourself with ‘thus sayeth Zarathustra’ when you should be concerned only with ‘Thus sayeth the Most High’.
“4) “If you really want to be heard, then change your message.”
…and your answer, in short:
“…the Message is not “mine” to change in the first place.”
Then first consider the axiom and then consider the source of your message.
“Oh, by the way, neither the consciousness of the “self” nor the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ was Created by God.”
One can scarcely imagine a more perfect example of the thorns you have allowed to become embedded into the sides of YOUR consciousness. And rather than suggest to you that you are tragically in error about this final point, I will suggest to you only that you consider the implications…
Consider what it might mean for you IF you are wrong about this, and consider the totality of the curse if you are: All progeny engendered from within the warped womb of illegitimate philosophical perspectives can only result in one of two things…
…either a stillbirth or a deformed abomination.
Descartes has done you a terrible disservice. H e has contaminated your mind with his resultant closed-loop of self-cannibalizing insanity: “I am, BECAUSE I think.” It’s a quagmire. And it’s precisely what you deserve for putting your trust in MEN when you had better to put ALL of your trust in the Most High.
Oh, by the way, the “beast of the earth” consciousness of the ‘thinker’ INSISTS upon the continuity of ‘time’.
Why?
Because time DIScontinuities threaten the “self” with psychosis. (Just observe the movement of ‘time’ from the first passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes–where time appears to stand still–to the rapid acceleration of time *after* the postulation of the “cogito”.)
This is why the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ actually considers the phrase “choppy and erratic” to be a criticism of some intrinsic value.
It has the same value in the real world as a $500 bill in Monopoly.
Michael
Your errors, in the order in which they appeared:
1) “…readily observed by WHOM?”
There is no “whom” to observe this. There is only the knowledge that is observed by no ‘observer’. A “whom” is a ‘spatialized’ consciousness of a “self” or a ‘thinker’.
What I am talking about must be observed from the third dimension of consciousness beyond the ‘spatialized’ consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; so I am not surprised that you ask “by WHOM?” (Certainly, not by you; obviously.)
A metaphor which will NOT be helpful to you: A person on a moving train drops a ball and observes the path of the falling ball as being a straight line perpendicular to the floor of the train because the observer, the ball and the train are all moving at the same rate. To that observer, there is no horizontal component to the motion of the falling ball.
A stationary observer in the train station, on the other hand, sees the path of the falling ball as being a curved line; composed of the vertical component, also seen by the observer on the train; but also composed of a horizontal component, not observed by the observer on the train. If told by the observer in the train station that there is a horizontal component to the path of the falling ball, the observer on the train would say “it is nothing more than your imagination; nothing more than a delusion”; or, perhaps, “you are ‘re-arranging the topography’ to support your delusions.”
The observer on the moving train symbolizes the consciousness of the “self” going through ‘time’ as the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; the observer in the train station, outside of the ‘time’ of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, represents the observing consciousness. (Oh, by the way, the observer on the train has never observed what is observed by the observer in the train station; while the observer in the train station first observed what is now being observed by the observer on the moving train; but, then, experienced the observations made from the train station.)
2) “…until such time as that legitimacy has been validated.”
The observer on the train—the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—CANNOT and WILL not EVER validate the observations of the observer in the train station; because it is on the train and can only observe what it observes from its own particular frame of reference.
3) “…within the boundaries you would have me confined to.”
You are on the train. Period. Even if you deny it (which is nothing more than a psychological reflex—a serpent wriggling away from being stepped on—originating in the fear of the annihilation of the “self”.)
You cannot confine me to the boundaries of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ on the train.
Just because YOU are on the train, does not mean that EVERONE must be on the train. Be on the train if you want to be. That is YOUR choice. But I am in the train station.
And people like you conduct drive by shootings of people in the train station: like the Pharisees and Sadducees against Jesus, for example.
4) “…a universally accepted set of rules…” “axioms”, “philosophy”, blah, blah, blah…and other things of value to the ‘fallen’, dualistic consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (for which, read J. Krishnamurti).
These ‘universally accepted set of rules’ are developed by the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—whose ONLY real function, whether you know it or not, is to PRESERVE the consciousness of the “self” from psychosis. That is what should be observed about the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes. But you are on the train, so you can’t really see that.
5)“…choppy and erratic thinking…”
Thanks for the compliment; but flattery will get you nowhere.
There is NO ‘thinking’ going on here at all. It is all originating in the “observing consciousness”. (In any case, you don’t understand that there is NO SUCH THING as ‘thinking’, in the first place.The verb “to think” assumes a ‘thinker’ and then a thought. This is a violation of Occam’s Razor. There is only thought; one of those thoughts being the thought of the ‘thinker’, another of those thoughts being that there is any such a thing as the verb “to think”. But that is just your imagination; or, more accurately, a serious delusion.)
6)“…your Message IS universally rejected…”
WOW.
Do you now claim Omniscience?
How was Towards A New Paradigm of Consciousness published in The Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research; or was that my imagination?
And what about the tens of thousands of page views of the writings on my web pages on consciousness and “unsealing the seven seals” from dozens of countries around the world; or is all of that my imagination, too?
7) “Consider what it might mean for you IF you are wrong…”
‘Thanks’ for the advice, but I already have. Daily. For more than 38 years.
It would mean that I have completely wasted not only this life, but all of my previous lives in a futile struggle against Evil in this world.
But if, on the other hand, you and the tens of thousands of people whose consciousnesses vibrate with the energy frequency of the thoughts that you write are wrong, what that will mean is that millions upon millions more will soon be slaughtered, after millions have already been slaughtered, for ignoring the Revelations and Prophecies I have received.
And those who have specifically and directly been involved in the censorship of this information will have the BLOOD of those millions upon millions on their hands.
I would not exchange their ‘karma’ for mine for ANY amount of money.
(Oh, by the way, for those who don’t believe in evolution: You appear to have ‘evolved’ over the course of this discussion from a reptilian, serpent, “self” to a “beast of the earth” ‘thinker’. So, I have to admit that some congratulations are in order. But you are still on the moving train of the ‘fallen’ consciousness…with no indication that you will EVER observe the path of the falling ball from the train station.
Sort of reminds me of myself…about 40 years ago; BEFORE I received the Vision of the “Son of man” and the Revelation of “the resurrection”.
Again, thanks for playing.
And I mean that seriously.
Michael
“A metaphor which will NOT be helpful to you: A person on a moving train drops a ball and observes the path of the falling ball as being a straight line perpendicular to the floor of the train because the observer, the ball and the train are all moving at the same rate. To that observer, there is no horizontal component to the motion of the falling ball.”
Phenomena related to the theories of relativity are legion, and you can wax poetic about them as often as you like. You will still have come no closer to addressing the specifics of my complaint. If dazzling the hoopleheads with references to theoretical physics is a source of amusement for you, then you’d be better off preaching somewhere else. For the purposes of this conversation, Einstein doesn’t even get a seat at the table. You can put him right back on the shelf where he belongs. Then you can knock of the one-size-fits-all curtain of chicanery. Or, if you like, you can carry on playing with balls.
“The observer on the train—the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—CANNOT and WILL not EVER validate the observations of the observer in the train station; because it is on the train and can only observe what it observes from its own particular frame of reference.”
The concept of relativity has been artificially shoved into this conversation by you. It is an inappropriate introduction, and resorting to its application will get you nowhere closer to resolving your dilemma.
“You cannot confine me to the boundaries of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ on the train.”
What are you then? a fart cloud floating around in the cosmic ether? No. You are just a lost and self-deluded straggler. You are out of the way because you have made yourself into the philosopher’s board of fare. You have thrown open the gates of your mind to their poisonous doctrines and now you have become infected with their nonsense.
“Just because YOU are on the train, does not mean that EVERONE must be on the train. Be on the train if you want to be. That is YOUR choice. But I am in the train station.”
Balderdash. You are in prison. And you don’t seem all that upset about it either.
“And people like you conduct drive by shootings of people in the train station: like the Pharisees and Sadducees against Jesus, for example.”
I am guilty of perpetrating drive-by shootings on you. That’s a fair charge. And when I descend to such tactics, I do so against the instructions of my Master. It’s unfortunate. But you deserve it. I’m not justified, but your vainglory has provoked me to say on. If you took your research and development and applied what you learned to actual practice without your arrogant delusions of grandeur, you would be far better equipped to move across this terrain unencumbered by your myriad self-imposed limitations. As it happens, you are stuck. Any progress you perceive is illusory. But of course, you are not even in pursuit of progress on account of your believing yourself to have already arrived at your destination. One rude awakening, coming up.
“4) “…a universally accepted set of rules…” “axioms”, “philosophy”, blah, blah, blah…and other things of value to the ‘fallen’, dualistic consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (for which, read J. Krishnamurti).”
I need further courses in philosophy about as much as I need a third nipple growing out of my left eye. I prefer to read what the philosophers themselves have read. Philosophers are among the most notoriously filthy well-springs; especially errant theosophers and gnostics like this Krishna/Murti goobersmoocher.
“These ‘universally accepted set of rules’ are developed by the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—whose ONLY real function, whether you know it or not, is to PRESERVE the consciousness of the “self” from psychosis.”
False. There are rules for communication; for without rules, communication would be impossible. There would only be chaos. The rules may be flexible, but they cannot be discarded completely. The rules are binding. You are suggesting that the rules should not apply to you. This particular error is central to your affliction. There is nothing unique about any of this.
“That is what should be observed about the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes. But you are on the train, so you can’t really see that.”
You are also something of an unbridaled narcissist, this trait being a sine qua non for a self-appointed ‘messenger of salvation’ like you. And narcissism and grandiosity may go hand-in-hand, but they are a potentially lethal mix of psycho-spiritual intoxicants. Pour in a dash of gross negligence and you have an unstable recipe for one spectacular self-immolation.
“The verb “to think” assumes a ‘thinker’ and then a thought.”
I guess we can add nihilism to your rap-sheet of wrong-headedness.
“This is a violation of Occam’s Razor.”
Oh really? You are clearly parroting something you read somewhere. Too bad whoever you are paraphrasing was an ultra-maroon. The verb “to think”? Violation of Occam’s Razor? I can see we’re about finished here. You’re down to the bottom of your tool box and you’re running out of ideas. That’s okay. I’m running out of patience.
“Do you now claim Omniscience?”
No, snapperhead. But I do claim to have read a great deal of what you wrote. You yourself have complained ad nauseam about your abominable success rate. Would you like me to read back to you some of your musings? On second thought – I withdraw that offer. Go read them yourself.
“How was Towards A New Paradigm of Consciousness published in The Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research; or was that my imagination?”
What are you claiming here? Your language is borderline nonsensical. Are you praising something you’ve had published? Link to it. I’ll read it.
“And what about the tens of thousands of page views of the writings on my web pages on consciousness and “unsealing the seven seals” from dozens of countries around the world; or is all of that my imagination, too?”
No. That’s all real. And I can assure you the readers would all like back the time they spent wading through your belly-aching and scriptural gymnastics. The Sword of Scripture is like a wet noodle in your hands.
““Consider what it might mean for you IF you are wrong…” ‘Thanks’ for the advice, but I already have. Daily. For more than 38 years.”
At least there’s that.
“It would mean that I have completely wasted not only this life, but all of my previous lives in a futile struggle against Evil in this world.”
That’s not what I meant. That’s just you being arrogant and melodramatic again. You didn’t have any past lives – at least, that’s the major portion I suggest you consider being wrong about. You seem unwilling to go there because it wouldn’t mean you’ve had a galactic injustice perpetrated against you…
…it would mean that you are galactically un-galactic. Just a normal nobody – not a unique snowflake. Again, there is a point to this ridicule. Look at the point. Ignore it at your peril. (No – I’m not claiming to be somebody. I’m nobody. Don’t look at me. Look at yourself. For real.)
“But if, on the other hand, you and the tens of thousands of people whose consciousnesses vibrate with the energy frequency of the thoughts that you write are wrong, what that will mean is that millions upon millions more will soon be slaughtered, after millions have already been slaughtered, for ignoring the Revelations and Prophecies I have received.”
O the grandiosity. The Tribulation is coming, Michael/Christopher. With you or without you. You have nothing to say about the matter one way or the other. THAT train has already left the station. You claiming any sort of meaningful connection with fact, one way or another, is little more than public masturbation.
“And those who have specifically and directly been involved in the censorship of this information will have the BLOOD of those millions upon millions on their hands.”
Duly noted. Your message is nothing worth. Your message is self-serving hogwash.
“Again, thanks for playing.”
Only one of us here is playing, Michael/Christopher, and it’s not me.
Just a few more corrections:
1) I never mentioned Einstein. The thought experiment is a development of an experiment by Galileo.
You still can’t escape the fact that people define reality in terms of their dimension of consciousness. If I, standing in the train station, see things that you do not see; you cannot *pretend* to be in the train station and say that you do not see the same thing, and that I am delusional. I am not saying that what you see on the train is not reality. What I am saying is that the observations from the train station are just as real as the observations on the moving train. The one difference is that I am willing to acknowledge the perceptions of your frame of reference as being the reality from your frame of reference—because I have been there—but you are not willing to acknowledge the reality of, for example, the memories of previous lives (maybe you should read the book Soul Survivor about the 4 year old boy who had memories of being a fighter pilot in the Pacific during World War II).
2) “What are you then?”
I am a “self” and a ‘thinker’. My “self” types these words, for example; the ‘thinker’ tells me that I need to turn on the computer so you can read what I write. But the thoughts are not thoughts of a “self” or a ‘thinker’. They are thoughts originating in the non-dualistic observing consciousness. Simple, huh?
3) “to their [the philosophers'] poisonous doctrines…”
The assumption that I am a “philosopher” is merely a delusion of grandeur of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ that insists that all Truth MUST originate from the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ itself. And, if you ‘think’ that Krishnamurti was a “philosopher”, you don’t understand the first thing about his teaching. No philosopher, for example, would say that thought, in and of itself, is the very origin of conflict and violence.
4) “You are in prison.”
Ever heard of projection, or the spatialization of an accurate perception?
The “rules” and “axioms” of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; and the desires and fears, the pleasures and pains of the consciousness of the “self” are the bars of your prison: The Matrix
It is only in the consciousness beyond such rules of the ‘thinker’ and fundamental demands of the “self” that the freedom that Jesus was talking about exists. But you, being in prison, cannot see those bars.
5) “You are not even in pursuit of progress.”
Read Krishnamurti. Progress and pursuit depend upon time; time is of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; and, as such, is the origin of conflict and violence. You create an image of progress; then, you split your attention to ‘observe’ the present situation; and then you compare the present situation with the image you have of what progress is. And, if there is a happy correspondence, the result is pleasure. But, if not, the result in suffering and the desire for more ‘progress’; which only repeats endlessly…
Like the ouroborus—the serpent with the tail in its mouth; or the “great dragon, known as the devil or Satan, who had deceived all the world” (from Chapter 12, verse 9 of the Revelation of John)
6) Occam’s Razor is “Do not unnecessarily postulate multiplicity.”
Thus, while you would say “A ‘thinker’ ‘thinks’ a thought”—which assumes the existence of a ‘thinker’, and a verb “to think”, and an ‘object’ of that verb (and, if that is not “multiplicity”, I don’t know what is); I would merely say “There is thought.” That thought is not ‘thought’ by any ‘thinker’; it simply is. There are also thoughts of a “self” and thoughts originating in the “observing consciousness”, of course.
Much of the rest of your language consists of nothing more than accusations-of-evil by a consciousness of the “self”—a viper which strikes because it has been cornered and its existence threatened. You are merely throwing stones.
They have no intellectual merit in the context of a discussion.
But don’t give up now.
Certainly, there are other avenues to be explored here.
And all of this is so very entertaining, don’t you ‘think’?
Thanks.
Michael
I already gave you the link to Towards A New Paradigm of Consciousness. But you might also like to read Commentaries on the Teaching of Jesus and the Psychology of Revelation:
http://science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/2013/11/commentaries-on-teaching-of-jesus-and.html
Speaking of corrections, a few of my own:
“…people define reality in terms of their dimension of consciousness.”
People define terms based upon their personal understanding, personal wisdom and personal experience. We may be saying the same thing. I shun the ‘dimension-speak’ in this case because THAT is a violation of Occam’s Razor.
I also admit the possibility of the PERCEPTION of past lives, although the vast majority of reported cases are fabrication and fantasy. I admit, I say, the few cases which may be reporting actual PERCEPTIONS. I deny, however, the reality of past lives. According to my understanding of things, the perception (even if legitimate) is part of a deception. It’s either that, or else everyone who reports the experience (so-called) is an attention seeking liar or a charlatan – little kids most definitely included. You are aware, I am sure, that potent doses of entheogenic substances have been known to produce visions of past lives. This evidence militates in favor of my argument about the phenomenon of past lives, I believe, because entheogenic substances are directly linked with shamanic experience of the ‘Akashic Records’ and the ‘Noosephere’. Just because these experiences are real does not mean they aren’t part of a dangerous deception. This is especially true considering the stern and oft-repeated warnings we are given in Scripture against personally exploring these ‘extra-dimensional’ concepts through first-hand experience.)
“The assumption that I am a “philosopher” is merely a delusion of grandeur…”
Are you really paying such little attention? Not encouraging. I never called you a philosopher. I called you the philosopher’s lunch.
“Read Krishnamurti.”
No thank you. Eastern Hindus and Brahmin occultists are liars and deceivers just the same as Western lying and deceiving occultists. Does he deserve extra credit for naming himself after TWO gods?
“…if that is not “multiplicity”, I don’t know what is…”
If we caution against unnecessary multiplicity, we must at the same time admit that an authentic need exists for multiplicity exists. The caution is to LIMIT multiplicity; not to ELIMINATE it. A conscious perceiver IN ADDITION TO an inanimate object to be perceived, is not a violation of this principle because that scenario is already reduced to the essential. There’s nothing extra and hence, no violation. There is no need whatsoever to DISSOLVE the distinction between the perceiver and the perceived.
“You are merely throwing stones.”
In other words – the messenger of caution has himself rebuffed outright a message of caution hand-crafted and delivered to him, at personal expense to the bearer. Do please consider the breathtaking irony of this scenario, and mark it well.
(I will read the links you provided. You are actually more sophisticated than I had originally perceived. Unfortunately for you, if I am right, this would mean the bonds that ensnare you are themselves more the difficult to slip. I can see clearly now that my condescending tone any my ridicule were even more inappropriate than I thought. For my part, I shall do my best to keep our correspondences on a more courteous and respectful level in the future. This is yet another example for why condescending and ridicule are never appropriate.)
I must admit that I continue to be amazed at your use of such terms (“unbridaled narcissism”, “grandiosity”,”arrogant”, “melodramatic”, “snapperhead” ???) in a discussion over, for example, the secrecy of Revelations, as Prophesied by Daniel. (Do you have any response at all to the Prophecy that, at the “time of the End”, new Truths would be Revealed; Truths which, however, “the wicked will NEVER understand”? Does such a Prophecy leave any impression at all on your consciousness?)
Such words indicate that you are so deeply ensnared by the dualities of the “self”, so dependent and insistent upon pleasuring yourself by shifting your attention to, and sharpening the purported ‘evils’ of the “not self”, that there should not be any wonder that you have no attention remaining at all for focusing on the issues at hand. For example, you still appear to categorically deny the reality of the memories of previous lives as being a universally applicable aspect of reality; something which, however, specifically flies in the face of the Prophecy of Malachi and quite clear statements by Jesus that both he and the prophet Elijah would return again; when it is that specific issue, above all others, which, historically, has resulted in such bloodshed. (Nor have you attempted to address, very specifically, the reply of Jesus to the Sadducees, in which he quickly puts to rest the nonsensical doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave—something which, I must suppose, is, to you, a legitimate substitution for that Revelation.)
So, I would simply urge you to try, once again, just to focus on this one simple issue rather than flying off the handle about my apparent ‘evils’.
Of course, I won’t be surprised if you lack the discipline to do that. That, unfortunately, has also been the response of every single one of the media and religious officials I have contacted in the United States over the past 38 years; the unfortunate consequence of which is that millions of people have already died because of their need for so pleasuring themselves; and millions more will die because of their inability to focus on either Revealed Truth or, ultimately, the unfolding reality of the events in the Middle East.
(And, yes, I do consider that to be something that is ‘inherently wrong with my intended audience’.)
Pleasuring themselves with images about how ‘evil’ I am, took an absolute precedence over the saving of human lives.
Just incredible.
Incredible beyond my wildest nightmares.
(And, of course, I sincerely appreciate the comments in your last paragraph; all of the above having been written before I read your reply.)
Michael
“I must admit that I continue to be amazed at your use of such terms…”
What did Isaiah say? :
“Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the YHWH of hosts.”
….and then a few sentences later you referenced Elijah. How did Elijah MOCK the prophets of Ba’al? The point is this – there’s more than just unchecked anger running through the digital ink in my comments to you. There actually is humor too. ‘Snapperhead’? Really? You’re a fella who tells people with a straight face that YOU personally are written about in scriptural prophecy. Where I come from, that sort of thing deserves to be mocked. You’ve taken it rather well so far, which might be taken to be a good sign. I’m not Isaiah and I’m not Elijah. Both of those men were (are) vastly superior to me. But you see these qualities to which you object manifesting also in the great prophets – so I imagine I’ll eventually be handed the same sort of bill for bad behavior that they will be handed. If I could address people only and always like the Messiah did, then that is exactly what I would do. I can’t. So you get what see.
“…flies in the face of the Prophecy of Malachi and quite clear statements by Jesus.”
I would very much appreciate it if you would provide one or two very specific citations from Scripture to better show me what you have in mind by the above statement.
“Nor have you attempted to address, very specifically, the reply of Jesus to the Sadducees, in which he quickly puts to rest the nonsensical doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave…”
I have, actually. Last time you and I conversed I was writing under a different screen name. I felt compelled to change my name because I was being relentlessly harassed by certain other personages who comment on this website. I flatly deny your assessment of the doctrine of ‘rebirth’. Your doctrine, if true, would invalidate the entire Scriptural Message. The fact that you don’t see that clearly, I suspect, is because you don’t know the Scriptures as well as you should.
“…off the handle about my apparent ‘evils’”
I’ve said what I have to say in that regard. It’s wrong for me to address you so.
“…has also been the response of every single one of the media and religious officials I have contacted in the United States over the past 38 years; the unfortunate consequence of which is that millions of people have already died because of their need for so pleasuring themselves; and millions more will die because of their inability to focus on either Revealed Truth or, ultimately, the unfolding reality of the events in the Middle East.”
I am suggesting to you that the vexation you experience in being ignored is a much larger part of the problem than you are willing to admit. In 38 years you’ve not been able to cobble together a more palatable version of your message. Why? CONSIDER: If you are right about everything you say, then you should be busy searching the Scriptures in order to better familiarize yourself with the METHODS by which the prophets and disciples had greater success than you are having. In other words, I am asking why YOU think that the prophets and disciples had better success than you are having. Surely people are not UNIVERSALLY less spiritually intelligent today than they were over the past millennia. Or, if you suggest that people ARE less spiritually intelligent now than they were then, you should then theorize and test your theories as to WHY this might be so. After which, you would of course apply what you had learned to your method of messaging. But all of this should be done, first and foremost, in the light we are given by the Word of Scripture. Philosophy, if considered at all, should never be placed on an equal footing with the written Word. When someone ‘genetically-modifies’ a hybrid of Scripture with philosophy, as you are fond of doing, the end result is a product which is alien to just about everyone whose ear you hope to bend. It is also a bastardized form of ‘mingled-seed’ – something against which we are cautioned in Scripture in the strongest terms imaginable. It is con-fusion. I can think of no faster rout to arrive at a diseased doctrine.
“And, yes, I do consider that to be something that is ‘inherently wrong with my intended audience’.”
That’s a cop-out. That is no different than the carpenter blaming his hammer for shoddy workmanship. If the people are daft, then you need to tailor your message to their weaknesses. Or you need to change your message.
1) “I flatly deny your assessment of the doctrine of ‘rebirth’.”
Makes no difference what you deny.
There is the reality, and then there is your denial and contradiction of that reality. And, on the basis of your denial and contradiction of reality, it is simply not possible to get through the reply of Jesus to the Sadducees with any kind of the continuity that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ demands of Truth. (But, all of a sudden, the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ no longer cares about continuity.) It would take a considerable amount of time to walk you through that reply step by step; and, in the end, you still would not understand.
2) “…would invalidate the entire Scriptural Message…”
Close.
It invalidates what the “beast of the earth”, consciousness of the ‘thinker’, “false prophet” monotheistic religious ‘authorities’ SAY that Message is; a message which they have sold for BILLIONS of dollars. (And what did Jesus say about requiring payment for the Teaching? “NEVER MIND what he said. WE need to make MONEY.”)
3) “…why the prophets and the disciples had better success…”
Any evidence for this?
How many people did Isaiah convince of the revelation of the memories of previous lives, as cryptically described in Chapter 26, verse 19 of the Book of Isaiah?
In Chapter 8, verse 16, he writes “I bind up this testimony. I seal this Revelation in the heart [which is a code word for the Revelation of “the resurrection”] of my disciples”—meaning that the Revelation can be effectively conveyed only in an oral Teaching; and to his immediate followers (which is also demonstrated in the Treatise On Resurrection, found at Nag Hammadi).
Isaiah was not successful.
According to the Talmud, the Book of Ezekiel was almost removed from the canon.
The Book of Daniel was successfully ignored when it came to composing the canon.
Jesus and his immediate followers were murdered. (Paul was SUCCESSFUL because he CONTRADICTED the Teaching of Jesus.)
Tens of thousands of Albigensians were exterminated by the Roman church for teaching the same Doctrine that Jesus taught.
The Gnostic followers of the Teaching of Jesus were exterminated and their writings almost completely destroyed (except for the Nag Hammadi Codices).
The Dead Sea Scrolls had to be hidden to preserve them from the JEWISH religious ‘authorities’.
How many Muslims understand that Mohammed was Elijah and John the Baptist ‘raised from the dead’, although there is SPECIFIC evidence of that in the Quran?
Wikipedia will not even allow MENTION of the Doctrine of “the resurrection” as a MINORITY point of view on its page on “resurrection”.
Show me ANY evidence AT ALL for the success of Truth in this world.
So, your belief that the prophets EVER succeeded is just a cup of the ‘kool aid’ distributed by the monotheistic religious establishment to put you to sleep. And you are happily snoring with sweet dreams of the already attained success of Truth.
4) “…a hybrid of Scripture with philosophy…” “philosophy on an equal footing with the written Word…”
Are you KIDDING me?
What about the doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave, borrowed from the Egyptian pagan religion? What about the doctrine of a metaphysical existence of rewards and punishments, borrowed from any number of pagan religions; or a metaphysical ‘soul’ borrowed from Greek philosophy (and which also exists to be “re”-incarnated in Hinduism)? What about the pagan doctrine of ‘vicarious atonement’; or the fundamental doctrine of idolatry than a man can be ‘God’?…
ALL of which are considered by Christians to be SUPERIOR to “the written Word”.
So, when I DENY the pagan doctrines that: 1) a man can be ‘God’; 2) that there is any such thing as a metaphysical ‘soul’; 3) that there is any such thing as a metaphysical ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’; 4) that there is any such thing as ‘vicarious atonement’; or 5) that there is any such thing as a Revelational Doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave….
When I deny, point by point, ALL of the metaphysical, idolatrous NONSENSE of Christian theology…
And INSIST that the Doctrine of “the resurrection” is a demonstration of the Power and Righteousness of God within the context of Chapter 28 of Deuteronomy…
What am I ACCUSED of?
Of mixing philosophy with the Revelations.
Speaking of “DAFT”…
Michael
“…continuity…”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you are thinking it means. In order for there to be CONTINUITY in the Scriptural Narrative, your assessment of ‘rebirth’ would have to be wrong – of a necessity. That would mean that you have MISREAD the conversation between Jesus and the Sadducees. Could His response to the Sadducees mean what you think it means? I withhold my answer to that question while I ask another: Could it mean something OTHER than what you believe it means? Let that float around in the cyber-ether while you ignore it, yet again. That question has been asked of you now many times, both by myself and by many other questioners.
““…would invalidate the entire Scriptural Message…” Close.”
Wrong. Any doctrine of re-birth NEGATES the entire point of Scripture; that point being the message of Salvation through FAITH in the Messiah, who died ONCE as an atoning Sacrifice for the otherwise unforgiveable sins of the people of this world. Any doctrine of re-birth NEGATES that message. There is no grey area. Black and white. No wiggle room. Such is always the case with the signature of the Most High. Separation. Distinction. Boundaries; both visible and otherwise. The Deceiver works his majik in the grey zones of mingled messages and con-fusion of light with darkness.
“…why the prophets and the disciples had better success…” Any evidence for this?”
Surely you jest. Were the Jews not LOOKING for the Messiah when they found Him? And if you suggest to me I need to show you evidence of the disciple’s (the apostle’s) success, then I’m really not sure what the point of further discourse would be.
“How many people did Isaiah convince of the revelation of the memories of previous lives, as cryptically described in Chapter 26, verse 19 of the Book of Isaiah?”
This is an invalid question on account of the invalid principle upon which it rests. No such message exists in anything Isaiah ever wrote. If you’re seeing such a message, your eyes are lying to you. If Isaiah ever advocated in favor of such a message, then Isaiah was a false prophet and the Scriptures fall. This has nothing to do with belief or opinion. There is no room for you to be right about this. Or, if you are right, then the Scriptures are false and we (my brethren and I) are of all men the most tragically deceived and miserable.
“…which is a code word for the Revelation of “the resurrection…”
That is a lie.
“…meaning that the Revelation can be effectively conveyed only in an oral Teaching…”
And if THAT is true, then the Most High is a liar. Only one of you can be telling the truth, Michael…
…you, or HIM. Guess which one of you I believe.
“Isaiah was not successful.”
Isaiah had success delivering the message he was charged with delivering. Men sought him out to get an answer from on High. Anyone ever seek you out to get an answer from God, Michael? Isaiah had the success he was intended to have. Isaiah NEVER intended to deliver the ‘message’ you erroneously look for in the Scriptures, so to claim that he had no success in delivering that message is a non-sequitur.
“According to the Talmud, the Book of Ezekiel was almost removed from the canon.”
Nothing contained in ANY version of the Talmud is admissible in any conversation about the contents of Scripture. The Talmuds should only be referenced as an example of what NOT to do and what NOT to be on the grounds that the Talmuds are tainted by the vilest filth imaginable to feeble human minds. The Talmuds are not worthy to be used for kindling or for toilet paper. They belong at the bottom of a dung heap.
“Paul was SUCCESSFUL because he CONTRADICTED the Teaching of Jesus.”
At no time and in no way did the Apostle Paul (once an apostle) contradict any portion or part of the Messiah’s teaching.
“The Gnostic followers of the Teaching of Jesus…”
Inasmuch as there IS a Gnostic VERSION of Jesus, a subtle inversion of the actual Messiah, this statement of yours has merit. However, there is no legitimate Gnostic version or teaching of the actual Messiah. Gnosticism, in all of its forms, is a corruption of the valid and is a deformity of the truth. Gnosticism is just one of the many doctrines of demons. There are no exceptions to this.
“Wikipedia will not even allow MENTION of the Doctrine of “the resurrection” as a MINORITY point of view on its page on “resurrection”.”
Is actually what you meant to say?
“Show me ANY evidence AT ALL for the success of Truth in this world.”
Your lack of familiarity with prophecy is stunning. We are on a 7000 year schedule; to witness first the rise of the Fourth ‘Reich’ at the end of the sixth millennium – the kingdom of the rising Horus-Child (aka Ho Antichristos) – , to be followed by the penultimate battle at Har Meggido, and then by the return of the King of Kings to usher in the seventh millennium or ‘day’. Are we or are we not RIGHT ON SCHEDULE as prophecy said we would be? Are we now on the cusp of a cashless society RIGHT ON SCHEDULE as prophecy said we would be? Are there not earthquakes in diverse places? And does nation rise against nation, or no? You are blind.
“What about the doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave, borrowed from the Egyptian pagan religion?”
What species of nonsense is this? If two sources both describe an actual phenomenon, is one of those sources plagiarizing from the other?
“ALL of which are considered by Christians to be SUPERIOR to “the written Word”.”
Show me one of these Christians who believes something not found in Scripture to be superior to the Word, and I will show you a Catholic, a Mormon, or a Jehovah’s Witness. True Bible-believing Christians know that there is no higher source of authority in this world than the written Word.
“When I deny, point by point, ALL of the metaphysical, idolatrous NONSENSE of Christian theology… And INSIST that the Doctrine of “the resurrection” is a demonstration of the Power and Righteousness of God within the context of Chapter 28 of Deuteronomy… What am I ACCUSED of?”
You are accused of DENYING the entirety of the Scriptural Narrative. You are accused of denying the VALIDITY of the written Word. You are accused of denying the Son of the Most High. And you are accused of denying the Spirit of the Most High.
Additional clarifications:
1) “People define terms…based upon their own person experiences…”
Precisely my point.
And the actual receiving of the memories of previous lives is a unique experience because it provides a direct experience of a consciousness *outside* of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.
Why outside?
Because that consciousness is capable of ‘observing’ different “selves” from one life to another and another; and every observation must have a frame of reference; and that frame of reference *cannot* be any individual “self”; but an “observing consciousness” independent of space and time; which is *where* the concept of an emerging consciousness originates in Buddhism in the first place.
2) Do I agree with everything Krishnamurti says?
OF COURSE NOT.
But, on occasion, he very incisively demonstrates the characteristics of the “observing consciousness” in the observation of the very structure and origin of thought—in the process, however, glorifying the consciousness of the “self”; which, of course, is a quite serious problem.
3) Regarding the distinction between the perceiver and the perceived:
Pay ATTENTION.
PLEASE.
In the very act of perception, there IS no perceiver and perceived. There is, on the contrary, no distinction at all. The distinction does not arise UNTIL the ‘movement’ of self-reflection. When you are listening to your favorite music—deeply engrossed in that experience—there is no listener and there is no music; there is one totality of experience/experiencer. It is only when you REFLECT upon the fact that you are listening to that music that there is the origin of both “you” and the “music”.
This can be observed by the “observing consciousness”.
4) “..against personally exploring these extra-dimensional concepts…” “Akashic records”, “Noosphere”, etc.
I never explored any extra-dimensional concepts. I held very rigidly to the rules and logic of the scientific method; disregarding even the ‘nonsense’ of Jungian psychology. But, then, I loved a woman and received a memory of a previous life in which I had known her. I was utterly horrified at that memory and did everything I could to forget it. But, approximately 3 years later, it happened again; in such a way that it could not be ignored. And I simply don’t believe in any “Akashic records” or the complete nonsense of Teilhard de Chardin or whatever his name is.
Thanks for the reply.
Michael
“And the actual receiving of the memories of previous lives is a unique experience because it provides a direct experience of a consciousness *outside* of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.”
Why, in the light of scriptural teaching, is it not more likely by far that any such ‘memories’ (assuming they are not imaginary concoctions) have been ‘downloaded’ (as it were) by an unfriendly entity or entities whose grand purpose is the furtherance of a world-wide deception? According to Scripture, that wouldn’t even be a violation of Occam’s Razor – it would be the PRIMARY starting point for all such ‘memories’, if they existed, and in perfect agreement with Sir William’s principle. And if the memories exist, then the next move would be to determine why the particular individual, within whom such memories have been placed*, has been ‘targeted’ by nefarious deities for such special treatment.
[* Note I say ‘placed’ because I have not yet encountered ANYONE who claims these kinds of memories from birth or even VERY early childhood. These memories ALWAYS seem to crop up at some later point in life – even when they are reported to have manifested in children. Surely there is meaning in this.]
“Do I agree with everything Krishnamurti says? OF COURSE NOT.”
Do you agree with everything Scripture says? If you say NO, then immediately we see a problem for both you and your message. If you say YES, then yet another problem at once raises its head: If you believe everything the Scriptures say, then how is it that you have come to place philosophy (philosophical teaching of any kind) on an equal (or even greater) footing with the written Word? I greatly anticipate your answer to this particular question. Please spare no detail.
Of Krishna/Murti, you wrote:
“…on occasion, he very incisively demonstrates the characteristics of the “observing consciousness” in the observation of the very structure and origin of thought—in the process, however, glorifying the consciousness of the “self”; which, of course, is a quite serious problem.”
There are what seem like GEMS of great knowledge to be found in MANY of the philosopher’s works and records. The same can be said for the alchemists and the students of hermetic science. Have you ever read Augustine? Manly Hall? Francis Bacon? There is brilliance at work in all of them, to be sure. But what happens when the holy comes into contact with the profane? Does the profane become holy? No it does not. The profane contaminates the holy and makes it unclean. In six or eight linear feet of shelf space, you had better imagine that there are more than one or two pearls of wisdom to be found in the Jerusalem Talmud. But the pearls have been embedded into the lowest form of inglorious filth imaginable. We’re not miners and we’re not oyster-shucker; we’re supposed to be fishers of men. We are told repeatedly that we DO NOT have it within our skill-set to extract precious doctrine from an unclean source. The fact is this: we don’t know enough. We’re not smart enough. And if you now say to me (as you have in the past) that your doctrine was handed to you whole and intact by some entity who existed outside of and apart from your imagination, then you are in dereliction of duty if you have not taken that doctrine and examined it INTENSELY in the light of the Word of GOD. You have been taught by Scripture how to test the spirits, just like I have. You’ve also been taught how to ‘vet’ a message. The responsibility is on you to have satisfied the requisites of that duty; and more so in your particular case on account of your professed ‘calling’ and your prolific writing. The responsibility is entirely yours, and if you are deceived the blame is entirely yours. Whether you fail in the end because you are deceived or you fail because you are a poor messenger, you will be called upon to answer for your failure. Blaming everyone else for their dullness of hearing and getting angry at people for not listening to you does nothing at all to advance your cause.
“But, then, I loved a woman…”
Was there something inherently antinomian about this ‘love’?
“…and received a memory of a previous life in which I had known her.”
Was this at a time of your life when your conduct was inherently antinomian?
“I was utterly horrified at that memory…”
Not exactly the hallmark of a ‘heavenly’ vision.
“…and did everything I could to forget it. But, approximately 3 years later, it happened again; in such a way that it could not be ignored.”
I am willing to believe you on this. However, if everything you just said is true, then you MUST be able to hear where I keep coming from. These images you describe are not holy. They are not clean. They have not come to you from on High.
“And I simply don’t believe in any “Akashic records” or the complete nonsense of Teilhard de Chardin or whatever his name is.”
Nor I. Whatever this thing is that people are describing, if there is any truth to it at all, is just another appendage of the ‘astral-super-computer’ we have been warned, over and over, against plugging into or tampering with.
Before addressing some of the things you wrote, I need to make a very general comment.
Over the past 38 years, people ‘thinking’ exactly like you ‘think’—EXACTLY—have chosen to suppress the quite specific Prophecies I have sent them of the coming “time of trouble” as well as the Revelations I have received that demonstrate the authenticity of those Prophecies. There is, in fact, no significant difference between the consciousness that you express, the consciousness they express, and the consciousness of the psychopaths of ISIS. And, if a person with your consciousness were to be dropped into the same environment as the members of ISIS, I have NO doubt at all that you would be doing EXACTLY what they are doing. That you have not, to my knowledge, taken that particular path in your current circumstances is, I suspect, due to the fact that you have simply not been given the opportunity to do so.
The very root of your consciousness is reptilian; the brood of vipers that Jesus refers to.
Sometimes it is a smiling reptile; and sometimes, as in this particular reply, it is a foaming at the mouth reptile. But it is always a reptile.
And you love it.
And you will NEVER understand the Truth, even AFTER it is explained to you
1)“…by an unfriendly entity or entities…”
Your comment reminds me of the paranoid ideation of Descartes in the Meditations; concocting the existence of a ‘demon who might try to convince him that he does not exist’.
Bizarro.
But, in any case, don’t be shy.
What you WANT to say is EXACTLY what the Sadducees said at the time of Jesus and what the Roman church (see the Easter edition of the L’Osservatore Romano in1990) says today: that so-called ‘memories of previous lives’ is nothing more than an instance of demonic possession.
2) “…ALWAYS seem to crop up at some point later in life…”
Such a ludicrously false statement clearly demonstrates that you have NEVER even RESEARCHED the matter. In fact, those memories are most often experienced in early childhood BEFORE the fear of death and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is fully formed; the boy in Texas, for example, who had memories of a previous life as a naval aviator.
Just TRY reading the book Soul Survivor and concluding that he was possessed by a demon. His parents were Christian Fundamentalists, for chrissakes (literally); and even they did not think that it was a case of demon possession. And, as the boy grew older, those memories simply faded; which is the way that it usually happens.
3) “Do you agree with everything that Scripture says?”
It is an utterly worthless, ‘drive by media’ kind of question.
ESPECIALLY when asked by someone who contradicts root and branch the Teaching of Jesus by adhering to the blood-thirsty, metaphysical idolatry of Paul.
I agree that Moses, Daniel, Jesus and Mohammed all received essentially the SAME Vision—variously referred to as the “Tree of Life”, the Vision of the “Son of man”, the “Vision of Knowledge” (from the Thanksgiving Hymns) and the “Night Journey” (from the Quran).
All the rest is just commentary.
But let’s just focus on ONE of the contradictions that you claim to believe.
In Chapter 2, verse 18 of II Timothy, Pharisee Paul condemns as heretics, ‘those who say that the resurrection has already taken place’. But, in Chapter 27, verse 52-53 of the Gospel of Matthew, there is a metaphorical description of the revelation of the memories of previous lives received as a consequence of the crucifixion by those who loved Jesus the most. And, for them, “the resurrection” HAD already taken place. Those who received the revelation of the memories of previous lives became what were later to be called the Gnostics; whereas those who believed the Pharisaical doctrine of Paul became the Christians…and held to a theology that resulted in the extermination of the Albigensians, the Crusades against Muslims and the Holocaust. You know; who YOU consider to be the GOOD guys.
4) “Was there something inherently antinomian about this [ ]…?
This is, without a doubt, the most reptilian, contemptuously and unconscionably VILE thing you have said to me so far. (Is there any serpent foam on your monitor, by chance?)
When a person says something like this, it makes me wonder whether they are even of the same species as humans; whether they have EVER in ALL of their life experienced ONE single moment of purity, one SINGLE moment of innocence, or unconditional love, or compassion.
Any HUMAN who had any information about that memory would blush down to their TOE NAILS for having replied the way that you did. But I very seriously doubt that you are even capable of shame.
That is one thing I have learned in 38 years: reptiles have no SHAME.
5) “They have not come to you from [ ]…”
There you go again.
Playing your ‘Omniscient’ card.
More serpent foam on your monitor
Because what I say contradicts your consciousness of the ‘thinker’—which , of course, threatens the temporal continuity of your consciousness of “self—you conclude that I am lying.
I only wish that YOUR name was on one of the dozens if not hundreds of return receipts to the letters I have mailed informing people of the Prophecies I have received…
So that you would be much more DIRECTLY responsible for the current as well as the future blood-shed in the Middle East.
Michael
Here is the problem you keep running into, Michael – and this will never go away on its own; this matter needs to be addressed by you head-on, and in such a fashion that it satisfies both you and the people to whom you insist on delivering your message. The problem is best reduced to a very simple question:
WHO is your authority, Michael?
We cannot proceed further until you consent to answer this one very simple question. You are certainly intelligent enough to immediately notice the problem this question poses for you and for your message. But with this one important question in mind, let us address what you’ve written:
“Over the past 38 years, people ‘thinking’ exactly like you ‘think’—EXACTLY—have chosen to suppress the quite specific Prophecies I have sent them of the coming “time of trouble” as well as the Revelations I have received that demonstrate the authenticity of those Prophecies.”
By now it should be no secret at all WHOM I consider to be my authority, in that I willingly submit to the authority from on High in the form of the Word of YHWH of Hosts; He who descended to this Earth to teach and to GIVE – He gave all that He had; but so it is that He now has everything. My authority is the Word of YHWH painted across the pages of Scripture. I answer to the authority of the Most High, and to the authority of the written Word. I have at no time suppressed, nor attempted to suppress, anything you have ever written. I have, in my annoyance with you, said such things as ‘shut the ‘f’ up’, which, though rude, do not rise to the level of suppression.
NOW THEN – given the fact that my authority is written in Scripture, and given the fact that I have satisfied myself that I know Scripture better than you do, I would ask you why it is that you feel justified in claiming that I should be under any obligation at all to listen to a single thing you tell me, when you have not even identified your source of authority.
Did you have a vision? Are you privy to personal revelation? Fine. But by WHAT authority have you authenticated those visions or that personal revelation? Because if you cannot or will not validate your visions or revelations according to the written Word, then you must answer to some OTHER authority. You are now compelled to identify that authority. Either that, or take your place among the charlatans. And if you would say to me that YOU yourself are your own authority, then know that you should come back to this conversation only with a handful of cotton to protect your eardrums from my laughter. If YOU are your own authority, then WOE unto you.
“There is, in fact, no significant difference between the consciousness that you express, the consciousness they express, and the consciousness of the psychopaths of ISIS. And, if a person with your consciousness were to be dropped into the same environment as the members of ISIS, I have NO doubt at all that you would be doing EXACTLY what they are doing. That you have not, to my knowledge, taken that particular path in your current circumstances is, I suspect, due to the fact that you have simply not been given the opportunity to do so.”
The authority to which I answer would not allow that to happen to me. Not because I am worthy or because I am special, but because I trust in Him. He teaches me. I do my best to learn the things He teaches. I do my best to follow the Instructions I am given. These are the very same instructions He has given to ALL who would be His servants and His students. There are no secrets. And there are many brothers and sisters in Syria, in Iraq and in Jordan who are even as I am. I am not the result of philosophy, Michael. I am the result of mercy.
“The very root of your consciousness is reptilian; the brood of vipers that Jesus refers to.”
It comes as no surprise to me that you see things this way. If you are right, then I am in big trouble. If you find that I have something of The Snake in me, your eyes probably do not see amiss. I am still in Babylon. I am coming out of Babylon, but she is a sticky harlot. Her wiles adhere. The process of perfection is a process of BECOMING. I am in the process of becoming like my Master; I am not yet like Him. I am against The Snake but The Snake had me well in his coils for a very long time, and I am still an unclean and impure learner. I would need a promotion even to become worthy of the name ‘servant’.
And this may come as a surprise to you Michael, but the people who write the books that you keep suggesting I read, are only people. That means they lie. That means they crave attention, just like you. That means they have unclean and selfish motives. And here is another thing you may not enjoy hearing – I have read them all. No, I haven’t read everything you suggest that I read. But I have read enough of that sort of noise. That’s what it is. It is noise. No matter how much noise one makes and how loud, it is still just noise.
““Do you agree with everything that Scripture says?” It is an utterly worthless, ‘drive by media’ kind of question.”
ONLY people in your predicament have trouble answering DIRECT and SIMPLE questions of this kind. There are no questions you can ask me that I would duck with the deceptive dance that you and your kind ALWAYS resort to. You won’t answer such questions because you cannot withstand such a direct inquiry. I will never duck any of your questions. I don’t have to. You have to keep slithering just to stay alive. You know that if you stay put in one place for too long that Someone will step on you and bruise your head.
“…blood-thirsty, metaphysical idolatry of Paul.”
The Apostle Paul is my brother and I stand by everything he says in Scripture. Both Paul and I answer to the same Master. Paul never, not once, contradicted anything the Messiah ever said or taught. Scales on your eyes prevent you from seeing the truth of this matter.
“All the rest is just commentary.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. Are the Koran and the ‘Thanksgiving Hymn’ your authorities? Answer the question. I dare you.
“But let’s just focus on ONE of the contradictions that you claim to believe.”
Yes. Let’s do.
“In Chapter 2, verse 18 of II Timothy, Pharisee Paul condemns as heretics, ‘those who say that the resurrection has already taken place’. But, in Chapter 27, verse 52-53 of the Gospel of Matthew, there is a metaphorical description of the revelation of the memories of previous lives received as a consequence of the crucifixion by those who loved Jesus the most.”
Oh really? Let’s see what Matthew 27:52-53 have to say about that:
“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
Nope. Nothing about past lives and false memories here. Messiah raised Lazarus from the dead. Dead saints came out of their graves in the day Messiah was resurrected. More than that, Scripture does not say. Yet you claim to know more than what is written, and I demand to know by WHAT authority you know what you claim to know. If you REFUSE to identify your authority then you deserve to be dismissed and ignored by EVERYONE. And don’t simply repeat to me that you had a vision or a revelation. Identify the SOURCE or the AUTHORITY for that vision or revelation. I dare you.
“When a person says something like this, it makes me wonder whether they are even of the same species as humans; whether they have EVER in ALL of their life experienced ONE single moment of purity, one SINGLE moment of innocence, or unconditional love, or compassion.”
You can put any amount of spin on this you want. But what we have here is just another case of you refusing to answer a simple question. I’ll ask the question another way: Was there something about your relationship with this woman which would have been PROBLEMATIC (shall we say) in the light of scriptural teaching? In other words; was she married? Was she a witch? Was she a harlot? I don’t actually care to know the answer to any of these questions. I ask them only because the answers may well go a long way toward explaining the timing and the nature of your so-called visions. Once again we see that you are unwilling to consent to questioning. That’s because you actually have a great deal to hide. A lieutenant of the Serpent himself could come to me right now and begin questioning me on these boards for all to read. I would answer all his questions. Try me. Everything upon which I lean is utterly indestructible and can withstand ANY barrage of questioning on ANY topic at ANY time. You are hiding in the shadows and you feign outrage when someone comes close to pulling you into the light. Look at the top of this page, Michael. People are reading.
“Any HUMAN who had any information about that memory would blush down to their TOE NAILS for having replied the way that you did. But I very seriously doubt that you are even capable of shame.”
No one here cares about the SPECIFICS of your escapades. You know exactly what I was asking. And if you didn’t know, you do now.
Quoting me you wrote: “They have not come to you from [ ]…”
Isn’t it interesting that you amended that statement the way you did. Why would you do that? I think the answer is becoming all too clear. To everyone but you, that is.
Answer the questions. I dare you.
You won’t. You can’t. The most you can do is slither and squirm.
your wrong
http://www.newmessage.org
Closing comments:
Jesus was murdered not as any ‘vicarious atonement’ for your sins—in order for your pagan metaphysical ‘soul’ to be admitted to any pagan metaphysical ‘heaven’—but because he taught a Doctrine that you hate with every fiber of your being.
You ‘think’ exactly like the Sadducees ‘thought’—those who were most responsible for the death of Jesus—and you are proud of it.
(How well Daniel Prophesied of you that you would “never understand” the Truth—not even after it has been explained to you—because you are wicked.)
The “beast of the earth”, consciousness of the ‘thinker’ doctrinal details of what you believe are fundamentally irrelevant; which means that it makes no difference at all whether, from one life to another, you have been a Christian, a Nazi, a Jew, a Communist, a Muslim, a Fascist, or an atheist psychopath.
The structure of your “beast of the sea” consciousness of the “self” demands the extermination of anyone who disagrees with you, anyone who is in any way different than you.
People thinking exactly like you were responsible for the extermination of the Gnostics and the Albigensians, hundreds of thousands of the Jews of Europe even before the Holocaust, millions of the black peoples of African, and millions of the indigenous populations of the Americas and the Pacific islands.
People thinking exactly like you were responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings; and, more recently, the slaughter of millions of the Muslim peoples throughout the Middle East. As well as the millions more who will die in the near future.
The Prophecies of Chapter 11:40-45 to Chapter 12 of the Book of Daniel are being fulfilled right in front of your very eyes; but you have become so blinded by idolatry, pride, greed, the lust for power and/or the lust for blood that you are unable to recognize the overwhelming evils of the doctrines you believe, and that your kingdom of Satan will soon be brought to an end. The only question is the time.
People ‘thinking’ exactly like you are in control of the “dragon” mainstream, ‘alternative’ and Internet media, in control of Wikipedia, in control of “the beast” political establishment, in control of the “false prophet” monotheistic religious establishment; which, together, are pushing this civilization into the horrors of the “time of trouble” in specific fulfillment of the Prophecies of Daniel and Jesus and John.
But you don’t care. You have no shame.
No argument, no amount of evidence, no Revelation, no Vision, no anything can convince you that you are wrong because your “beast of the sea” consciousness of the “self” does not operate at the level of conceptual Truth at all. It is a pleasure-pain, desire-fear, reflex-based, non-conceptual, reptilian consciousness.
You and the millions upon millions of people who ‘think’ exactly like you would rather the annihilation of human civilization itself than to acknowledge that you are wrong. And the evidence for your evil is all around you but you can’t see it
People ‘thinking’ exactly like you have won every battle against Truth in the history of human civilization; and so, over the centuries, you have become more and more delusionally convinced that Satan cannot be defeated.
But, in fact, the Sons of Light win the only battle that it is necessary that they win: the Last Battle.
And, according to the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light—which, by the way, speaks of a “kingdom of Michael”, in echo of Chapter 12 of Daniel (and, later, the Quran)—that Victory is an Eternal Victory.
Thanks for playing.
Michael
michael,
Mike, God the Father who willingly allowed His Son to be brutally sacrificed for mankind calls the weak and the rejects of this world to confound the wise —- you are confounded.
But in Their Great Love the Father and the Son created a spiritually perfect plan of salvation, the last day of that Plan is called “The Last Great Day” which is the 7th Holy Feast of the 7 yearly Feasts.
That time is the 2nd Resurrection where all who have not had their opportunity for salvation are resurrected back to physical life for judgment. Those that are now confounded will have their chance.
Ezekiel 37
“Jesus was murdered not as any ‘vicarious atonement’ for your sins—in order for your pagan metaphysical ‘soul’ to be admitted to any pagan metaphysical ‘heaven’—but because he taught a Doctrine that you hate with every fiber of your being.”
This is an interesting statement coming from a liar who refuses to consent to answering the most basic of entry-level questions. The truth is, rather, that the doctrine of lies advocated for by the liar is rejected on the grounds that its validity has not been shown, cannot be shown, and WILL not be shown, because there is nothing in Scripture to support any preposterous nonsense of the kind. Both the messenger and his message of ‘rebirth’ are without merit and are shown to be the fraudulent concoctions of a dark mind.
“No argument, no amount of evidence, no Revelation, no Vision, no anything can convince you that you are wrong…”
No evidence of ANYTHING has at any time been offered by the bearer of this tainted message. All he has managed to do is to sing songs about some nebulous vision he had a long time ago. He consents not to be questioned about the nature of the vision, and he refuses to answer specific questions about the SOURCE of his vision. He refuses to identify his authority. Deception of this nature is NEVER an indication of truth. The ‘messenger’ has absolutely nothing upon which to base his claims except his flapping gums. Yet he pretends to be shocked and appalled when he fails to convince anyone of his lies. He places the blame for his failure to convince on people’s stupidity, or in this case, on his opponent’s alleged association with evil.
“It is a pleasure-pain, desire-fear, reflex-based, non-conceptual, reptilian consciousness.”
Another of his settled upon tactics is to pester his readers with psycho-philosophical-sounding gibberish like this utterly meaningless flotsam.
“You and the millions upon millions of people who ‘think’ exactly like you would rather the annihilation of human civilization itself than to acknowledge that you are wrong.”
And in perfect keeping with the millions of charlatans and vainglorious liars who have come before him, he plays the victim to his ‘audience’, hoping everyone will have forgotten that at no time has he offered even the slightest shred of supporting evidence for ANYTHING he ever said.
“But, in fact, the Sons of Light win the only battle that it is necessary that they win: the Last Battle.
And in text book traditional form for the vainglorious charlatan, recognizing defeat he slithers away on his belly, furiously shaking his fist at his opponents, howling nonsense about his future victory, still lying to every face he sees on his way out the door.
So it goes for the messenger and his message. So be it, Vainglory.
The glory and the righteousness belong to Another. We’ll see for how much longer He lets you try to blot out His Name.
@Can any one of those who have so heartlessly and viciously condemned me for the Message I have conveyed contradict effectively the assertion that, esoterically, the “dragon” in the Revelation of John (and the “serpent” in Chapter 3 of Genesis) is a figurative description of the origin of the duality (I seriously doubt that they even understand either the meaning or the significance of the term “duality”, in the first place); that the “beast of the sea” symbolizes the consciousness of the “self; or that the “beast of the earth” symbolizes the consciousness of the ‘thinker’…?
You laughable Hindu master race wannabe! We’re freaking taught that all those interpretations in school! People are ignoring you because they would rather talk to the sane than waste time with a fool trying to con them into slavery!
Plato paints the picture of a Charioteer (Greek: ἡνίοχος) driving a chariot pulled by two winged horses:
“First the charioteer of the human soul drives a pair, and secondly one of the horses is noble and of noble breed, but the other quite the opposite in breed and character. Therefore in our case the driving is necessarily difficult and troublesome.”[1]
The Charioteer represents intellect, reason, or the part of the soul that must guide the soul to truth; one horse represents rational or moral impulse or the positive part of passionate nature (e.g., righteous indignation); while the other represents the soul’s irrational passions, appetites, or concupiscent nature. The Charioteer directs the entire chariot/soul, trying to stop the horses from going different ways, and to proceed towards enlightenment.
—————————————————
AND YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME TRYING TO RANT WHAT YOUR PSYCHOTIC BRAIN IMAGINES AS ETHICS.
ALL YOUR ETHICS ARE BASED ON PEOPLES INNATE INFERIORITY AS YOUR ‘DRAGON’ UNDERFOOT IS A RESULT OF ALL THEIR EVIL PAST LIVES.
AS ALL ‘THEIR’ EVIL PAST HISTORIES ARE ALSO A SIGN OF THEIR EVIL AND YOUR ‘YADA YADA YADA … MASTER STATUS / WISE MAN / PROPHETHOOD ETC.
And ‘Christopher’ (Christbringer) / ‘Michael’ are symbolic
etc etc etc
Also Michael the ‘Christopher
“I seriously doubt that they even understand either the meaning or the significance of the term “duality”, in the first place”
Uhh…’Trinitarians’?
“Trinitarians”
There aren’t any of those here. I’m not. Truthseeker isn’t either. Michael/Christopher may be, but that’s between him and Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva.
I mean, I should “fear” your LOSER white-skinned male thug “god”, who did NOTHING but manage to get himself murdered while doing his stint here, in the hell “he” created”????
WOW, what a “powerful” (odd) human “god’!
THE FABLE (YOUE FABLE, believer) NEVER EXISTED, anyway!
ignorant fartus has BEEN REBORN!!!!! As….. SPAM SUPREME!
I wish you NOTHING BUT PAIN here in the HELL ON EARTH your kind co operates with, and HAS MADE, Jed!
You are ALL DISGUSTING, you malignantly narcissistic BIN “christian” personalities!
Yes, the “long-winded” (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) Beef Supreme, IS ALIVE TO SPAM AGAIN……………AND AGAIN………………….AND AGAIN……………………….ALL OVER BIN, LIKE THE MADMAN FOR AN ODD god, THAT JED FROM NJ, IS!!!!!
Wow, Spam King, what dribble!
You long winded “blesser”, Jed!
Known as BEEF SUPREME among many hundreds of BIN identities, Jed, from NJ (real name) is a pure, unabashed “cheerleader’ for a very “evil” and “odd” god (complete with a Dick, just like Jed has)!
Yes, Beefy boy (Jed The Fed) the infamous maniac for a very “odd” white-skinned male odd god, complete with a “Dick”!
I would recognize your dribble from the book of babble ANYWHERE!
Greg, the hairy hole blesser is my favorite BIN character of yours in awhile, Jed, the Fed (from NJ)!!!
Or, Nik Flem, or. well, there have been SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many, Greg, er, Nik, ah, Beefy boy,
No, I mean jed, the Fed (from NJ)!
Jed, the non-christian “christian scripture” expert!
What a violent, conflicted mess of sub-humanity you are, jed!
Wishing you nothing but the worst, Lunatic demonic zionist jed, from nj!
WARNING, STAY AWAY FROM JED, FOR HE IS A deranged, violent, LUNATIC, like most of his BIN chris0CREEP “Fans”!
A secret message in Latin awaits you, BIN reader!
Jed est,caput ficedulae!!!!!!!!
@ignis fatuus
I hardly count unhyphenated Americans who won’t go within 5 miles of each other..
@ignis fatuus
By which I mean that is, usually, just a side effect of Americas historical crowd control need to homogenize the various peoples who have made it up – individualism (if it’s patriotic and state worshipping) etc.
The main point is that ‘dualist Christians’ are idiosyncratic and historically Christians who were not trinitarian were, in contrast, unitarian of some kind.
Valla wrote:
“The main point is that ‘dualist Christians’ are idiosyncratic and historically Christians who were not trinitarian were, in contrast, unitarian of some kind.”
Meaning WHAT, exactly? That a ‘Christian’ is without the capacity for comprehension whether he is Trinitarian, Unitarian, or a Dualist? You really like to cover your bases, don’t you. And if you mistake ‘homogenizing various peoples’ for anything other than what it is, which is a confounding of natural borders attack on separateness (as in ‘BE YE SEPARATE’), then your commentary is about as well-calibrated as your clarity of vision.
“Meaning WHAT, exactly? That a ‘Christian’ is without the capacity for comprehension whether he is Trinitarian, Unitarian, or a Dualist? You really like to cover your bases, don’t you. And if you mistake ‘homogenizing various peoples’ for anything other than what it is, which is a confounding of natural borders attack on separateness (as in ‘BE YE SEPARATE’), then your commentary is about as well-calibrated as your clarity of vision.
I mean what I typed: that it is a side effect of Americas homogenization of the various peoples as slaves were deracialized too. Naturally the ‘BE YE SEPERATE’ you are speaking about is about a people and NOT about individuals though American society tends people towards such individualism under the state.
And I do considered the few that consider God to be dual – the father and the son to be extremely strange and just a idiosyncratic form of unitarians uncertainty about whether it is only the father who is God or is Jesus God too. There seems to be a lot of the YHWH or Ya or some such in America it is even bleeding into the Yehshoobydoobydoo phenomenon which can only have arisen under the influence not of a traditional religious community but of highly atomized individuals who, increasingly, won’t won’t go within five miles of each other.
If these people cited ‘BE YE SEPARATE’ they would be doing so to confom to their Government, national institutions and medias individualism as it would not be to a traditional community and it’s church.
Either you are contradicting yourself intentionally, or I am simply not understanding you correctly. First, you say this:
“There seems to be a lot of the YHWH (…) in America it is even bleeding into the Yehshoobydoobydoo phenomenon which can only have arisen under the influence not of a traditional religious community but of highly atomized individuals who, increasingly, won’t (…) go within five miles of each other.”
But at the same time you suggest of these ‘highly atomized individuals’ that:
“If these people cited ‘BE YE SEPARATE’ they would be doing so to confom to their Government, national institutions and medias individualism as it would not be to a traditional community and it’s church.”
Are they conformists, or aren’t they? Is there such thing as a ‘highly atomized pro-government conformist’? And to what do you attribute the ‘Yeshooby-doo’ phenomenon, if not to a changing tide of willingness to advance personal study, rather than relying on traditional teachings of men and institutions? Are highly atomized individuals more or less likely to adopt a trendy fad in theology?
You might think you’re communicating coherently, but you’re not.
I might not be being understandood but I am being consistant. Individualisms separation from their communities is a response to the states homogenization of the members of it’s population that it is trying ‘to improve’ ie. be more compatible (not BE – just more compatible) with it’s elites – like WASPS.
This is state individualism
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eAQPBJ32Jzg/UE_6dbZhiHI/AAAAAAAAAGo/MlNRC4biaE0/s1600/pink-floyd-wall-2.jpg
Fads are by definition new so I think that individuals highly atomized away from more traditional communities are more likely to follow them. It helps when you remember that these people are not becoming ‘elites’ they are becoming more compatible with elites and so often the fads are ‘what is not elite’ (elites are almost always from conservative environments personally). Those who can only ever aspire to, at best, be compatible with them are often hounded with experimentalism when being social (libtard insanity) which in turns drives them more towards individualism.
Members of the official Unitarian Church are usually quite well off but I have the sense that others who are not trinitarian have become less disconected from more traditional Christian communities and that that is just a reaction to state homogenization.
Compare the usual idea of relious fanatacism and individualism and patriotism compared African American Churches and community stuff, Jewish Churches and community stuff, and Mormons and community church etc (of course, of these three, it was African Americans who most had a history of deracialization that probably contributed to their not doing as well overall as the other communities but I would think that what they have been able to do to better themselves has usually been inseparable from their community churches).
“…less disconnected…”
I respectfully disconnect from this conversation, on the grounds that I have determined an unacceptable effort/reward ratio if I were to continue.
I hereby cede the floor; if not to your brilliance, then most certainly to your unique ability to unhinge an otherwise cohesive motion of thought.
Good day.
OK I am terrible for typos.
I meant MORE disconnected.
The typos come from my feeling uncomfortable actually arguing with anyone and wanting to get out of that situation more quickly than is often necessary for my sentence editing not to go south.
Valla,
Doc Holliday was actually one of the slowest gunfighters in the Old West.
He was also one the deadliest.
When all the other guys in the fight were in an adrenaline-fired rush to blast their enemies as many times as they could, Doc would take his time… slowly… and aim. That’s why he almost never missed.
Point being — don’t be in such a hurry to pull the trigger that you shoot yourself in the foot. You obviously have something to say. It’s a shame that you let it all become obscured by confusing word choice and haste-induced typos.
Take your time.
Aim.
Before It’s News just axed this story from the Prophecy page ‘most comment’ box.
The article had been climbing up on the list very nicely.
This website is owned and operated by liars and deceivers.
And what a surprise.
EIGHT minutes after I insulted the website ownership and moderators…
LOOK who shows up to spray chunks of diseased pig meat all over the page.
Gee whiz, Beaver. I wonder how THAT happened.
ignorant fartus wrote (with a heavy, whine tone of voice)
“Before It’s News just axed this story from the Prophecy page ‘most comment’ box.
The article had been climbing up on the list very nicely.
This website is owned and operated by liars and deceivers.”
Ahhh, jed, the Fed!
Are you evil, demonic, “monster-god” worshipers called “chris0CREEPS” being “persecuted” by BIN?
(You have NOT seen anything, yet, as far as “Persecuted” goes. Just wait……………………)
You are DISGUSTING, Jed, from NJ (BEEF SUPREME) you malignantly narcissistic BIN “christian” personality!
You’re an “self-bloated, POMPOUS, idiot!
You (just with ignorant fartus) accounted for at least 12 of the total comments!
And, as usual, you INSANE chris-0CREEP real name Jed, from NJ, you are “talking with yourselves” RIGHT NOW!
ignorant fartus, Man, Valla, THEY ARE ALL YOU, Jed, from NJ, the FOR REAL MAD MAN (for Christ, of course)!
“Talking with yourselves”!
You should be institutionalized, Jed, for your own good, and my safety!
“And, much more importantly, because such accusations can easily—and unquestioningly—be repeated by anyone with the intelligence quotient of an earthworm.”
Oh look! It’s the Lord of the (reborn) Fleas!
Is that turds that his (reborn) ruled are handling / tentacling?